Otis Sanford: Verdict no surprise, given trial missteps

Fortunately for George Zimmerman, no surveillance cameras — which are ubiquitous in our society these days — were there to capture his fatal encounter with Trayvon Martin.

He’s also fortunate that no one actually saw him fire the fatal bullet from a 9-mm semiautomatic pistol into Martin’s heart on the night of Feb. 26, 2012. And the closest thing to an eyewitness for the prosecution turned out to be a godsend for the defense.

John Good, the well-spoken, seemingly unbiased resident of the gated community in Sanford, Fla., where Martin died, told the six-member, all-female jury that Martin appeared to be the one on top as the teenager fought with Zimmerman. Most damaging for the prosecution was Good’s depiction of Martin getting the best of Zimmerman in a “ground and pound” style.

Zimmerman also benefited from tactical errors that prosecutors made, including the decision to introduce his many statements to police and others in which he insisted that he shot Martin in self-defense.

That merely played into the defense’s hands by, in essence, allowing Zimmerman to repeatedly give his side of the story to the jury without having to get on the stand and face cross-examination.

And finally, Zimmerman’s greatest fortune may have come when presiding Judge Debra Nelson would not allow prosecutors to introduce evidence from two audio experts who independently concluded that the voice heard on a 911 tape screaming for help was that of Martin.

As a result, the next best experts on the 911 screams were the mothers of Martin and Zimmerman. And the dueling testimony of the two women, who each said the voice belonged to her son, ultimately negated itself.

Add to all that the Sanford Police Department’s initial decision not to arrest or charge Zimmerman and the testimony of police officers who said they believed Zimmerman was telling the truth, and the prosecution was doomed.

Hence, the jury’s conclusion Saturday night that there was enough reasonable doubt to find Zimmerman not guilty of either second-degree murder or manslaughter.

That’s not guilty, but certainly not innocent.

At best, this neighborhood watch volunteer was negligent in ignoring a 911 dispatcher’s warning not to follow Martin, who he said looked suspicious. Turns out, the teenager was doing nothing wrong and was merely returning home from the store with candy and an iced tea.

At worst, Zimmerman was borderline malicious in profiling Martin and then getting out of his vehicle with a loaded handgun to confront the 17-year-old — no matter how the fight started or who landed the first punch.

Simply stated, the outcome of this trial should leave a bitter taste in the mouth of every right-thinking American. And yet, the calls now for the U.S. Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Zimmerman for civil rights violations are based more on emotion than the facts.

Of course, the DOJ should continue its review of the case. But federal prosecutors would face even greater hurdles in seeking a conviction in U.S. District Court. For one thing, they would have to prove that Zimmerman specifically targeted Martin, who was African-American, and attacked him because of his race. In other words, they would have to convince another Florida jury that Zimmerman is guilty of a hate crime in the manner of the killers of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr.

Shepard was abducted, tortured and left to die because he was gay, and Byrd was chained to the back of a pickup and dragged to death because he was black. Both crimes occurred in 1998, and nine years later, Congress passed the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare those two incidents with Martin’s death, no matter how reprehensibly we believe Zimmerman behaved. For example, a conviction under the federal hate crimes law requires prosecutors to show that the death went far beyond negligence, recklessness or a series of mistakes.

I see more of a comparison to the O.J. Simpson case, in which a shoddy police investigation and a less-than-admirable prosecution resulted in Simpson’s acquittal in the death of his wife and another man.

After that verdict, the outraged relatives of the victims sued Simpson for wrongful death and won in civil court. And that appears to be the best avenue for Martin’s grieving parents.

It’s clear that Zimmerman’s initial actions led to Martin’s death. If he had stayed in his vehicle as he was told, none of this would have occurred.

But Saturday’s verdict, based on what was presented in court, was not surprising.

Justice is blind, but it is seldom perfect.

Columnist Otis Sanford holds the Hardin Chair of Excellence in Journalism at the University of Memphis. Contact him at 901-678-3669 or at o.sanford@memphis.edu. Watch his commentaries on WREG-TV Channel 3 at 4:30 p.m. weekdays.